Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Re-merge back to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent. This table was split out from the RfA table recently, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for keeping things that way. While the votes here are split close to evenly between people that want to keep the template and people that want to merge it back with the RfA template, the merge voters have more compelling arguments in my opinion, including:

A table that shows "recently" closed RfB's probably shouldn't have RfB's from 3+ years ago
Keeping unsuccessful RfB's on this table for such a long time could be seen as a "badge of shame" for unsuccessful candidates, and could even discourage potential candidates from applying if they know that their name will appear on this list for the next 3+ years
If someone wants to see a historical list of all RfB's, there are other places where that information is kept.

‑Scottywong | [comment] || 15:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent

Content split from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent. However, since RfBs are rare, "recent" goes back to 2014 (or 2017 once the current group close), and "Type" is designed to hold RfA and RfBs together, it seems superfluous to have two separate boxes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that this gives a reference to the recent RFBs that happened. I put a separate page for RFBs because RFAs are more common than RFBs. I think deleting it doesn't make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me, it makes more sense to split them as they are requests for different permissions. The separate RfB table gives anyone viewing the RfX page a birds-eye view of just how (in)frequent RfB are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remerge content to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent. They are rare enough that this shouldn't be separate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Apparently others see value in having a template to update every couple years, even though anyone can look at this page and this page to see complete lists of all successful or unsuccessful candidates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Reinstated as it looks like it's not as overwhelming as I thought. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prob don't need to transclude it at WP:RFA - assuming we can find other useful homes for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be only at the RfB section on that page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have some value. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have value, happy with current system, does no harm. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and just put a stub tag on it...... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do see the merit to maintaining these as separate tables given the separate processes and user rights, though I'm wondering if maybe it would be better to transclude both the recent RfA and RfB tables at the top of the page, rather than having to scroll down to the RfB section to view the recently closed RfBs? I do also see merit to merging the two tables together, as Nihonjoe advocates, in a single table located in the top-right corner of the page. However, if that approach is taken, we should still have a separation between the recently closed RfAs and RfBs. That is, we should have a row to identify the recent RfAs, list the previous x RfAs, and then do the same with a row to identify the recent recent RfBs, and list the previous n RfBs (where x refers to the identified number of recent RfAs and n refers to the identified number of recent RfBs). Doug Mehus T·C 22:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there are lots more RFAs than RFBs, putting both into a single table means that you normally won't have any RFBs visible, and you definitely won't be able to look up the last several. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete & remerge It's enough that if you fail an RfA you have a badge of shame in the template for a few months, but for SoWhy & Salvidrim!, they have to look at it for 3 years. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't a "badge of shame ," in fact, I have found it quite helpful in finding recent RfBs in order to compare them to current requests. Puddleglum ^2.0 03:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge I agree with Bison X. It may not be a 'badge of shame' but it's no fun for the humans involved. Let's treat each other kindly. Knowing one's name would be on that template for years gives a candidate one more reason to choose not to run. ETA: and it's of some concern to me that the decision on whether to expose yourself to that embarrassment has been made retroactively for at least two candidates and quite possibly three. --valereee (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge per Valereee. We have this and this, which contain the chronology if anybody wants it as a reference. Alternatively, I agree with Xaosflux that we put it somewhere else. Useight (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not sure what the argument is to delete, and not sure what the reason to keep is, but the keep argument seems a little stronger. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon the argument to delete is 1. Not needed 2. May be unkind and 3. May be counterproductive to encouraing RfB candidates. --valereee (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup. If the template needs to be re-merged OR if the time-out period (i.e. the time period before an item is removed from the template) needs fixing, do that. The template itself is useful and perfectly within policy. The reasons for delete are not reasons to delete at all, just reasons to fix. --Jayron 32 16:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, how do you fix that it may be unkind and may discourage candidacies? --valereee (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change the template so it only keeps recent results for a reasonable amount of time (1 month?) Problem solved. --Jayron 32 19:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is a template that is empty 90% of the time helpful to anyone? --valereee (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it would be more helpful to merge it into the RFA template, then do that. Either way, it doesn't require deletion to do so. You just have to do it. Normal editing can fix that problem; admins don't even need to be involved. --Jayron 32 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a deletion discussion. ~~This should be a talk page discussion.~~ —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: This template was forked from the other template recently. They both used to be one template. I'm pretty sure Ritchie333 nominated for deletion because he thought it should be deleted and the content merged back into the original template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that. I consider it a contrived delete rational, crossing policy WP:ATD, all that’s wanted is a redirect, no need for edit histories to be hidden, no need to delete the (argued) bad idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly it. I wasn't sure what to do with this page. Effectively deleting + re-merging rolls back the status quo to the start of the year; however, I want to get a broad acceptance this is the right thing to do first. Hence this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of a weird spot procedurally where because the template is in the project space, we have to use MfD, but this discussion should ideally be at TfD, where we do discuss merge proposals. With that in mind, I think we can continue the merge discussion here in the interest of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing this at TfD would have been acceptable from a "procedure" standpoint since it is a template, but you are also correct that since it's in WP-space it can be nominated here. That being said, I agree with the notion that since we're here there's not much point in moving it. Primefac (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should have been at WP:TfD. At TfD, my !vote would be Re-merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jayron (and by some token, The McClenon). ——SN 54129 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge - one table for both RfA and RfB is sufficient, we don't really need to display that Salvidrim! completely failed in RfB 3 years ago.--Staberinde (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge Don't see any need for two tables.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge per valereee. I don't particularly care what happens with the history, so either delete or redirect is fine with me. Either way, one template is enough. stwalkerster (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge. The old system—when both RfAs and RfBs were in one "Recent RfXs" box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship—was better because we could easily see all of the recent discussions that occurred on the page in one place. Dividing them like this creates more work than benefit. For a list of historical RfBs, other pages like Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological serve this purpose better. We can also consider creating a central page like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year for RfBs. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Update: I also agree with Valereee's comment in its entirety. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge. per Valereee and Mz7. If keep perhaps should have a time limit or say only a year back. PaleAqua (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge. WP:RFA hosts both requests for adminship and bureaucratship. User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report displays both current RFAs and RFBs. Splintering the results of the latter into a separate template unnecessarily spreads the content out further and is not actually helpful. What we perhaps do need is separate archive page similar to the one on Commons which lists all successful and unsuccessful requests for permissions (which can be named Wikipedia:Adminship and bureaucratship candidacies here, for example), and have the RFX report link to that at the bottom of the template for users who wish to view even older requests. Ə XPLICIT 09:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge I see no reason for two tables, and was really confused by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge: No need to split, also agree with Valereee and Mz7. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge as per Mz7; I just had the problem of finding recent RfBs. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge was confused when trying to find recent RfBs; having a centralized RfX table makes more sense. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.